[tony20009]

Originally Posted by roundel335

"Brand snobbery"? Really? That's a rather bold and also rude and crude comment, considering that what I said was true. Neither of those brands are BMWs - I didn't say anything about it being superior (which I personally feel it is, after 50 years of driving more types and brands of vehicles than you likely ever will). I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with someone who feels the need to correct everything that someone else says just to feel superior, especially when it's based on misinterpretation.

Correct what you said? Not at all. I offered my interpretation of it. If you say you aren't a snob about the brands, I guess I have to believe you. And no, you didn't explicitly say that any brand is superior to the other. But the connotation of calling a Lexus a "high priced Toyota" can hardly be seen as much but deprecating.

As to why I said what I did, why do you think I needed to say that to feel superior? Do you really think me unable to feel superior without responding to your comment? Self superiority, whether I possess it or not, is by definition achieved without involving others.

Originally Posted by roundel335

Lexus is part of the Toyota corporate empire, and as such, they're as much a Toyota as a Lincoln is a Ford. Try not to forget those basic items. As I once said to a friend, whose retired parents had just bought a Lexus, "they're nice cars, but they have no soul", and he readily agreed with me. Not everyone would.

So what part of BMW is Mini? Or Rolls Royce? If some bit from either brand finds its way into a BMW, does that make them the same things? There was a time when a Lexus was a Toyota. A Lexus XYS was marketed outside the US as a Toyota ABC, the only differences being the brand and model labels glued on the trunk. Today, despite similar styling aspects, it's pretty clear a Lexus isn't a Toyota, but yes, there are certainly shared parts between them.

And yes, I too think Lexus cars haven't as much soul as other cars, but the ISF will kick some butt and it drives well. Regardless of what I think, and whether I'd buy one, I have no reason to suggest someone not buy it based on its relationship to a Toyota, which in an of itself, is not a bad thing. If I were to suggest against it, it would be based on something objective: the lack of space in the rear, its inability to do this or that, the poor execution of some feature, this or that aspect of the car (something other than its connection to some other brand) feels cheap, or something else. Lacking anything concrete, were I to say anything at all, I'd just suggest one drive it and decide.

The essence of calling the IS or ISF an expensive Toyota is that you think the OP should go drive the IS and then go find the corresponding Toyota and determine whether the IS is worth the premium. Now I for one don't even know what Toyota car would be the equivalent of an IS. I wonder if the OP does? I know you didn't carry through with your idea and tell her/him.

Originally Posted by roundel335

Regarding Cadillac, again, these are GM alpha-platform cars built by the UAW, as are most other GM vehicles. In other words, they're typical of the one-platform, many-body lineup that GM offers to its customers, differentiated only by fascia and brand logos. Having owned multiple vehicles from the "Big Three", they're not my cup of tea any more, no matter how good Car and Driver says they are.

What exactly does who the laborers are have to do with whether a car maker utilizes a "one platform, many-body" strategy? Does this mean that if the UAW doesn't build them, car makers can have multiple platforms and multiple bodies?

I can accept that they just don't knock your socks off. That's fine; there's absolutely nothing wrong with your not liking/wanting one. And I applaud that you are willing to make your own decision about liking them, despite what the car press say.

I was of a similar mind about Apple products and in particular the iPhone. I had long used Nokia phones and I was quite happy with them. They did everything I needed them to and I was missing nothing. Then, after just being curious having read all the positive press about iPhones, I broke down and bought an iPhone 4 and I have to say, it's great phone; the yea-sayers were right. I was most impressed with how intuitive it is to use. Indeed to this day, I have yet to read an owner's manual for it. But for it being more phone than they need, I'd even suggest one to my aged parents (86 and 95 years old), for I truly believe, that unlike most cell phones, even simple ones, it wouldn't confuse them to use it.

I have since moved on to a new Nokia Lumia 920. I like it just as much as the iPhone, and it was far less costly. It doesn't have all the available apps that an iPhone does, but it has the ones I want. All those thousands of apps that I don't want really don't matter to me. The IS could well be to the OP what the Lumia is to me: a fine alternative to the iPhone that costs a lot less and offers no less utility or ease of use.

Originally Posted by roundel335

So - getting back to the OP's original premise - he can buy whatever he wants to save his BMW for better weather, but if he's trying to find a cheaper substitute for his more highly-valued brand, that's exactly what they'll be - they're NOT BMWs, so his satisfaction level may not meet his expectations.

Don't read something into every contrary opinion you find on here, Tony. This is two-dimensional blogging, not a face-to-face conversation, and the opportunity to mis-interpret is as wide as an interstate highway.

I agree, whatever the OP gets that isn't a BMW, won't be a BMW. As suggested above, s/he'll have to make that decision by driving some cars. He may not be satisfied with a non-BMW, but I'm fairly sure it won't be because it's a car that was made by the a Ford-, Toyota-, or GM-related car company.

I didn't read anything into what you said. I read it and I said that it read like brand snobbery because that's what it read like to me. I didn't call you a snob, I said only that your words give me the sense that you may have some brand snobbery going on in your post. Surely, be you a brand snob or not, you can see how decrying an upmarket car due to its connection with a mass market brand, and further implying that, in addition to purchasing a re-branded mass market car, by buying it one will pay more to get the same thing available in the mass market variant, could be construed as brand snobbery.